Premium
Effect of Surface Preparation on the Failure Load of a Highly Filled Composite Bonded to the Polymer‐Monomer Matrix of a Fiber‐Reinforced Composite
Author(s) -
Shimizu Hiroshi,
Tsue Fumitake,
Chen ZhaoXun,
Takahashi Yutaka
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2008.00404.x
Subject(s) - materials science , composite material , monomer , composite number , polymer , methacrylate , polymerization , matrix (chemical analysis) , fiber
Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of surface preparation on the maximum fracture load value of a highly filled composite bonded to the polymer‐monomer matrix of a fiber‐reinforced composite. Materials and Methods: A polymer‐monomer matrix was made by mixing urethane dimethacrylate and triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate at a ratio of 1:1 with camphorquinone and 2‐dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate as a light initiator. The matrix was then polymerized in a disk‐shaped silicone mold with a light‐polymerizing unit. The flat surfaces of the polymer‐monomer matrix disk were prepared in one of the following ways: (1) without preparation; (2) application of silane coupling agent; or (3) application of matrix liquid and prepolymerization. A highly filled composite material was applied and polymerized with a light‐polymerizing unit. Additional test specimens made entirely of the polymer‐monomer matrix were fabricated as references; the disk and cylinder were fabricated in one piece using a mold specially made for the present study (group 4). Half the specimens were thermocycled up to 10,000 times in water with a 1‐minute dwell time at each temperature (5°C and 55°C). The maximum fracture load values were determined using a universal testing machine (n = 10). Results: The maximum fracture loads for group 3 were significantly enhanced both before and after thermocycling, whereas the maximum fracture loads of group 2 were significantly enhanced before thermocycling ( p < 0.05); however, the failure loads decreased for all groups after thermocycling ( p < 0.05). All the specimens in groups 1 and 2 debonded during thermocycling. The failure load of group 3 was significantly lower than that of group 4 both before and after thermocycling ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of the current in vitro study, the application and prepolymerization of a mixed dimethacrylate resin liquid prior to the application of a highly filled composite was an effective surface preparation for the polymer‐monomer matrix of a fiber‐reinforced composite; however, the bond durability may be insufficient.